There's something fake about the feeling of a turbo car accelerating. I drive a golf v gti, and I love the acceleration, but it feels fake. When I drive my wife's Mazda 6, it doesn't accelerate as hard obviously, but it feels more real, immediate, and more enjoyable revving it to its redline. Turbo engines never rev as hard, or as high. Before the gti, I drove a 1994 model e36 318i, and later a 2000 Toyota mr2 spyder, and I loved revving both of them. I know the new M3 has to be a turbo car for fuel economy reasons, but don't tell me we all wouldn't love another NA M3.

There's something fake about the feeling of a turbo car accelerating. I drive a golf v gti, and I love the acceleration, but it feels fake. When I drive my wife's Mazda 6, it doesn't accelerate as hard obviously, but it feels more real, immediate, and more enjoyable revving it to its redline. Turbo engines never rev as hard, or as high. Before the gti, I drove a 1994 model e36 318i, and later a 2000 Toyota mr2 spyder, and I loved revving both of them. I know the new M3 has to be a turbo car for fuel economy reasons, but don't tell me we all wouldn't love another NA M3.

There is nothing fake feeling about a ~450HP/TQ turbo engine. It will cave your chest in on acceleration.

The whole "turbo lag" argument is so overused by enthusiasts and journalists alike. Most high performance turbos, of reasonable displacement, made in the last 5 years or so, have no appreciable lag when driven properly.

There is nothing fake feeling about a ~450HP/TQ turbo engine. It will cave your chest in on acceleration.

The whole "turbo lag" argument is so overused by enthusiasts and journalists alike. Most high performance turbos, of reasonable displacement, made in the last 5 years or so, have no appreciable lag when driven properly.

What do you mean by driven "properly"? And will it rev to 9000 or so? And what do you mean by "appreciable"?

I'll buy one when you can make the statement, "it has no lag even when you drive it improperly, and revs as high as the previous generation NA engine".

Hell I may buy it anyway just to have my chest cave in on acceleration. You do get tons of torque with turbos, they are good for that.

I'll buy one when you can make the statement, "it has no lag even when you drive it improperly, and revs as high as the previous generation NA engine".

Torque and high revs do not go together. It sounds like you're picking high revs over torque. They can both get to similar results, look at a F458 and a GT2, both are roughly as quick as each other, but one makes more than a 100 lb/ft of torque more with nearly a liter less displacement and a few grand lower redline.

Torque and high revs do not go together. It sounds like you're picking high revs over torque. They can both get to similar results, look at a F458 and a GT2, both are roughly as quick as each other, but one makes more than a 100 lb/ft of torque more with nearly a liter less displacement and a few grand lower redline.

I'm over torque to be honest. Some torque is nice, but not necessarily enough to cave my chest in, the novelty of that wears off quickly, whereas the thrill of high revs never gets old. I'd take the 458, or GT3, but more realistically (price wise) the e90 M3.

PS. The thrill of high revs can sometimes wear off too, when torque is so poor that the trade off is too great. e.g. the Honda S2000

PPS. Going down the greater displacement route is also lazy. As in the 6.2 liter AMG option.

I'm over torque to be honest. Some torque is nice, but not necessarily enough to cave my chest in, the novelty of that wears off quickly, whereas the thrill of high revs never gets old. I'd take the 458, or GT3, but more realistically (price wise) the e90 M3.

PS. The thrill of high revs can sometimes wear off too, when torque is so poor that the trade off is too great. e.g. the Honda S2000

PPS. Going down the greater displacement route is also lazy. As in the 6.2 liter AMG option.

I agree, I actually strongly dislike the N54 power delivery. I like cars that are a challenge to get the most out of. My old M Coupe handled like hell, but when you got it right, it was incredibly rewarding. Same for my dad's FD RX7 (speaking of no torque).

I'm sure the new F80 will be fast, but I sort of fear it won't be much fun to drive.

I'm over torque to be honest. Some torque is nice, but not necessarily enough to cave my chest in, the novelty of that wears off quickly, whereas the thrill of high revs never gets old. I'd take the 458, or GT3, but more realistically (price wise) the e90 M3.

PS. The thrill of high revs can sometimes wear off too, when torque is so poor that the trade off is too great. e.g. the Honda S2000

PPS. Going down the greater displacement route is also lazy. As in the 6.2 liter AMG option.

I mean if you understand the power delivery of the motor. Same thing with the S65 - try accelerating from 1500RPM in 6th on the highway - no pull at all. But, why would anyone do that? Doesn't stop journalists from doing it or people from complaining about it.

Quote:

And will it rev to 9000 or so?

Well not many cars rev to 9k period. But the only limiting factor is cost, which is obviously a huge concern for a mass production vehicle.

Quote:

And what do you mean by "appreciable"?

I mean that you can't appreciate the difference, eg it is almost irrelevant. Variable geometry turbos, twin turbos, and now tri-turbos are blurring the line of when boost "comes on". Drive an older turbo from the 90s, or even some from the 2000s and some of them had violent delivery of power when the turbo was in the sweet spot. And, if you go with a single turbo, you are making some kind of compromise in terms of power somewhere in the power band.

Quote:

I'll buy one when you can make the statement, "it has no lag even when you drive it improperly, and revs as high as the previous generation NA engine".

That doesn't make sense to me. Any of the current high revving V8s have very little power below 2.5k or so. There is no engine that does it all...at least not in a 70k-120k car.

Nope- the F10 M5 is more communicative to the road than the outgoing model when in the proper settings. The M cars are using hydraulic steering still and feature direct bolted rear ends to the chassis. The base cars I will agree with but not the M models.

The F80 and F82 were given their own "F" codes as BMW M realized that they replaced or modified 80% of the F10 M5 so it would meet their requirements. 80% of a changed product is not the same product- they anticipated the same for the new M3/4 and requested separate internal codes for development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singletrack

Seriously! I mean consumer reports as an authority on driving feel? That is really hilarious.

I never got to beat on the e46 much, but I can say that my e92 has the best steering feel and road feedback of any car I've ever driven. That is one of the chief things that sold me on the car.

Numerous reviews (not only CR), particularly out of Europe have talked about losing communication with the road (ride, sound, steering feel, noise, etc) in all the new platforms (including the M5), which might not necessarily be a bad thing, if the avg consumer prefers more comfort/isolation/smoother ride. This may actually end up increasing sales/profits for BMW, in which case it would be an ultimately very good business decision. Just think that CR has best articulated some of the points raised by some of these "greater authorities". Sometimes its good to solicit and pay attention to all points of views and help eliminate natural biases brought about by the natural tendency for people to seek validation for decisions. And speaking of validation, CR have been huge fans of BMW driving dynamics vs the competition for the past decade. Ultimately, the only true "authority" is yourself and we'll see how all these cars drive when we drive them ourselves and make up our own minds.

I mean if you understand the power delivery of the motor. Same thing with the S65 - try accelerating from 1500RPM in 6th on the highway - no pull at all. But, why would anyone do that? Doesn't stop journalists from doing it or people from complaining about it.

Well not many cars rev to 9k period. But the only limiting factor is cost, which is obviously a huge concern for a mass production vehicle.

I mean that you can't appreciate the difference, eg it is almost irrelevant. Variable geometry turbos, twin turbos, and now tri-turbos are blurring the line of when boost "comes on". Drive an older turbo from the 90s, or even some from the 2000s and some of them had violent delivery of power when the turbo was in the sweet spot. And, if you go with a single turbo, you are making some kind of compromise in terms of power somewhere in the power band.

That doesn't make sense to me. Any of the current high revving V8s have very little power below 2.5k or so. There is no engine that does it all...at least not in a 70k-120k car.

Turbo cars do have low down torque, and can be driven below 2000 revs all day if you want. But that sounds like the turbo diesel driver's favourite thing to do, getting great fuel economy, and doing your best not to hear the engine at all; keeping noise and revs to a minimum.

I don't like turbos, they are a compromise, and will always be a compromise to get good fuel economy/keep engine displacement down. They will rev lower, and make a less pleasing sound when driven hard. Lots of people don't mind that they are compromising, and I'm open to compromise myself (I bought a turbo engined Golf GTI myself) but I miss the NA feeling too.

I agree, I actually strongly dislike the N54 power delivery. I like cars that are a challenge to get the most out of. My old M Coupe handled like hell, but when you got it right, it was incredibly rewarding. Same for my dad's FD RX7 (speaking of no torque).

I'm sure the new F80 will be fast, but I sort of fear it won't be much fun to drive.

I'm sure it'll be fun to drive (I hope), just not as much fun for those of us that love NA cars.

"There will be a tremendous change in technology which comes from innovation. This has nothing to do with a change of BMW M's character or change of philosophy. We stick to our philosophy, to our DNA. We set our objectives then we think of the appropriate technology - how to put the objectives into practice. It will be for sure the best M3 ever - lighter (than previous M3), faster, better acceleration, and more efficient.

I [Schemera] already had the chance to drive the new M3, or however it's called, and it's really really great. I can tell you that this new M3 at this stage is better than the previous one."

Key word = "lighter"

I'd put up with the turbos if they make it significantly lighter than the e90 M3.

Having heard the sound of the new M5 turbo engine (massive disappointment compared to S85) and read numerous reviews of road testers complaining of the electric assisted steering, the new wave of M cars do not excite me at all. New M5 is far too heavy and therefore needs so much more power and torque than previous model and consequently more electronics to try and harness that power to the road. A vicous circle IMO and M, I feel, is going down the AMG route.

A NA engine is hard to beat when it comes to noise, throttle response and purity. I have a feeling that (for me) M cars are becoming too artificial and losing purity at the expense of lower CO2, all-round usability and ease of use.

BMW M need to focus on building cars with less weight and get a grip on how to make the steering more communicative with proper feel a la Lotus. Hopefully they'll also build more focussed models for the enthusiast rather than the fan boy poser.

I feel like a broken record, but the new 3-Series is just too dang big.

It's been that way for a long, long time. The E36 was a great size, the E46 was starting to get a little too big for my taste and the E9x just held no interest to me. The only F3x car that interests me is the F31 as wagons are supposed to be kinda big.

Turbo cars do have low down torque, and can be driven below 2000 revs all day if you want. But that sounds like the turbo diesel driver's favourite thing to do, getting great fuel economy, and doing your best not to hear the engine at all; keeping noise and revs to a minimum.

I don't like turbos, they are a compromise, and will always be a compromise to get good fuel economy/keep engine displacement down. They will rev lower, and make a less pleasing sound when driven hard. Lots of people don't mind that they are compromising, and I'm open to compromise myself (I bought a turbo engined Golf GTI myself) but I miss the NA feeling too.

Psst - labeling turbos a "compromise" is silly IMO. They are a compromise to you...a lot of people don't like high revving motors for daily drivers. Golf GTI is a fine car, but it is by no means "high performance".

everybody has an opinion. I'm looking forward to the new M3 because of its size - I can dump the M5 and get into something more maneurverable, and the teens can still fit in the back. I'm not a big fan of turbos either, but if they kill the *$&@ throttle lag I'll be happy with it.

I totally disagree with Singletrack. I don't want to adjust my driving style to accommodate the lag in the motor. The downshifting throttle blip on a Cooper S takes 3 times as long to execute as it does on a e9X M3 because you have to - "wait for it". Heck with that. I'm a type A.

I totally disagree with Singletrack. I don't want to adjust my driving style to accommodate the lag in the motor. The downshifting throttle blip on a Cooper S takes 3 times as long to execute as it does on a e9X M3 because you have to - "wait for it". Heck with that. I'm a type A.

I think it's funny that we are using Golf GTI's and Cooper S's as data points for a discussion about a next gen turbo M motor.